Proposed class changes

Boyd · Powerhouse Poster

RE: Proposed class changes

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

Hi all, just looking for a general view. Do people believe as I do that it should be up to us (the competitors) to be the ones that decide weather the proposed class changes are introduced. This would be by means of a vote. Or do you believe that it should be up to the commission to decide.

dirtdrifter · In rehab

why cull classes how about just making new one/s ? i cant see how changing the classes is all of a sudden going to make off road racing a more attractive sport! yes a bit of change might encourage some to have a go, but we all know you need money to go fast and heaps of spare time to prep and then reprep after each race.so by changing classes i cant see how anybody bar the top 20 national guys will not be affected.i can just see this forcing people out not drawing in the new. what is really needed is promotion within free to air television and wide spread magazine coverage, then that will lead to sponsorship and larger fields followed by more media coverage so on and so on. so we are never going to get journalists to come out and get all dirty, so how are we ever going to get them to understand what number goes with what class of car. so lets not change our sport to suit these people that dont turn up anyway. what is needed is self promtion so go out to your local media and row your own boat, if they dont know its on how can they come and cover it? well done to all our websites,photographers and of course dirtcomp. just keep spreding the word.

dirtdrifter · In rehab

Stingray 2212 wrote:

Hi all, just looking for a general view. Do people believe as I do that it should be up to us (the competitors) to be the ones that decide weather the proposed class changes are introduced. This would be by means of a vote. Or do you believe that it should be up to the commission to decide.

yes i agree arent all licence holders "stake holders" were is the survey!

Boyd · Powerhouse Poster

isn't the new class changes susposed to allow the average joe and media to understand what each class is?

by deleting class 3 and adding class 2 (1650 - 4000 NA) what is that achieving?

personally as a newcomer to the sport i found it easy to work out the classes, and i think the numbers work fine. as was mentioned earlier in america they have heaps of classes and they seem to be able to work it out. it just appears that CAMS want the new class 2 and they are thinking of a way to fit it in. why not leave the classes as they are and then just add the purposed class 2, for both state and national level.

VICSHMICK · Regular Poster

Hi all.

Yes I do believe that the decision is up to the competitors as Stingray said.

However the final decision is made by the commission and the commission can only make that decision based on information they have received from competitors.

Below is a copy of my letter to AORCom on my views about the current proposal and our sport in general.

The only way to get your views across to the commissioners is to do the same as I have done and submit a letter of your own stating your views.

The commission will not be arriving at their decision by checking forum pages so we can talk all we want on here but it will do no good.

I have sent a copy of this letter to offroadracing.com with the hope that it would be out there for everyone to see but it seems that they consider it too controversial to post on the site as I have not seen it up yet.

Have a read and a think and let me know what you think.

Members of AORCom.

I would like to voice my opinion on a few of the issues in off road racing that I am feeling frustrated about and hope that they will be viewed as constructive.

I will begin with the new class restructure proposal. There are many aspects of the new structure that I find disturbing and some that I find absurd. To begin with I was under the impression that the drive behind the restructure was to lower the number of classes, and if this is so then I am a little confused as to why you would go to all the trouble of lowering the number all the way to six classes only to introduce a new class and increase the number back up to seven. I can not for the life of me understand why you would introduce a class to suit class 1 cars that have been built in a manner that makes them unsuitable for the class 1 rules. Everyone knows that the rules for class 1 are unlimited save for a maximum resultant engine capacity of 6000cc. This being the case I do not know what people are thinking when they build a car that is under powered or has a substandard driveline or suspension and then complain when they cannot be competitive in that class. It is the owner’s choice to compete in that class and if he feels that the class is out of reach then he should consider moving down to a class that is within his reach. For this reason I see no need to create a class for uncompetitive cars.

There is one thing that annoys me more than anything else at the moment in our sport. This has to do with the attitude of the majority of the competitors to the so called upper level of our sport. It is far too common now as you walk around the pits at a national level event to hear people saying “how the hell can you compete with that” or “I may as well leave mine on the trailer”. What people don’t realise is that to win a national off road event takes a lot more than flashy equipment and money. More than anything else it takes dedication and ability. We have seen many people in our sport come and go that have had more than enough money and equipment and yet have had a finishing record so poor that they may as well left their cars on the trailer. The people that are currently winning events deserve to win these events! The wins are not handed to them on a plate! I get very frustrated when I hear all the talk about a so called Pro Class when most of the people who want a Pro Class cannot even get their own cars to finish an event let alone find out if they are competitive or not. There are still many so called big budget cars that are not even reliable enough to finish events. What I am trying to say is that to win an off road event is no mean feat and to penalise these people in any way because they are winning is ridiculous.

It is also interesting to note that the same people that walk around the pits at the start of the event, complaining about not being able to compete with the so called big dollar cars don’t seem to notice too much when at the end of the event many of those same cars didn’t finish or better still that the top ten contains many so called low budget cars. It is more interesting to notice that driver ability, car set up knowledge, preparation, and a damn good all round package can and very often does overcome cubic dollars. Off road racing is still an endurance type sport. It is unfortunate though that the tracks seem to be getting a little smooth and a little too fast but I think this is more due to a lack of ideal venues rather than organisers’ choice. Even so to win a championship you must still be consistent rather than just plain fast!

Now to turn to the amalgamation of two wheel drive and four wheel drive cars. Anyone who has been in a four wheel drive car with even moderate power will know that four wheel drive offers a far greater traction advantage over a two wheel drive car. Traction in off road racing is very important at a dry event let alone a wet one. The more power you have the more of an advantage four wheel drive becomes. To expect class 5 cars to compete with class 7 cars is a little to ask but to expect class 4 cars to compete with class 8 cars is ridiculous. What I mean by this is that if there were two cars comparable in power and suspension and the only difference was four wheel drive verses two wheel drive then the four wheel drive car would have a much greater advantage. I only hope that the members of these disadvantaged classes realise this before it is too late and voice their opinions accordingly.

The next problem I can see is with the option to run with or without a passenger in the buggy classes. As for class one I think that the power to weight advantage is little gain, but in smaller engine classes I believe it is a problem. Being a current class 3 driver I know all too well how much effect a little added weight can have on my cars performance. The new class restructure allows all classes of buggies to have the option of one or two occupants except for 1300 class which must always run a navigator. I am lead to believe that the reason for this decision was that a 1300 car with a driver only would have too much of an advantage over a 1300 car running with a navigator and that it was an issue of power to weight that lead to this decision. The point that people seemed to have missed here is that as a class 3 driver at club and state level I am not just aiming at winning my class. At club and state level I am aiming at an outright win and have managed to do so in the past. The idea of making all 1300 cars run a navigator does keep the class itself even, but to expect me to compete against 1600 cars that are running one up is not fair. I believe that the problem of power to weight extends to 1600 class cars as well. We are trying to keep people involved in our sport and if a 1600 driver turns up to an event and is serious about winning and finds that some of his close competitors are running without navigators he would be crazy not to leave his navigator in the pits too just to gain the same power to weight advantage. I think you would loose many more navigators from the sport than you would gain extra drivers. I am sure that this is not the type of trend we want to start in off road racing.

I would now like to turn your attention to the current class 3 in particular. I have been a class 3 competitor for 20 years, and I have no intention of moving up to 1600 class. There are two main reasons I enjoy the class so much. The first reason is that I get great satisfaction from being competitive and in many cases faster than cars in classes with more engine capacity than my own. The second (and by far most important reason) is the fact that the maintenance on a class 3 car is less than a class 2 car and much less than a class 1 car. Class 3 is probably the only class left that you can still be competitive in with a kombi gearbox. For these reasons it is still the ideal introduction class to national level racing. The fact that the maintenance is lower directly equates to lower cost and or more reliability. If we are trying to attract more people into our sport then we need to have a class that allows them to be eased into the challenge of preparing and maintaining an off road car for national level competition. This class needs to be available at all levels of our sport not just at club and state. I am aware that class 3 numbers have been a little low at national level for a few years, but people who have been around the sport for long enough will remember that this was also the case with class 2 in the past. However just look at class 2 now, probably the most competitive and well represented class in our sport at present. I believe that the class numbers go in cycles. People who started in class 3 move to class 2, and class 2 to class 1, what we need to do is promote class 3 as a feeder class, not eliminate it at national level. If class 3 is left alone for a while I am sure the cycle will come round again and we will see good representation in years to come. I myself have run the national series in the past but have not competed in the whole series for quite a number of years now. This decision to cull class 3 will not bother me too much as far as national level goes but I know of many people who are looking forward to racing their class 3 cars at national level and also of a number of new cars being built for this purpose. So it is more for those people that I argue against the restructure model than for my own benefit.

While I am talking about the national series I would also like to mention my disappointment with the lack of recognition a competitor receives for placing in their respective class in the championship. I did compete at two rounds of the championship in 2005. At the end of the season I had gained enough points to finish 2nd in my class. I do not expect a trophy or certificate for this achievement. I do not even expect my name to be listed in anything other than the end of season results that are posted to competitors. However I would not think that it was too much to ask that when I received a letter asking me if I would like to renew my number for the 2006 season that my letter might read something like….. Congratulations on your 2nd place in class for 2005……and

…….Are you aware that as 2nd placegetter you have the option of displaying the number 302 for the season 2006……..and……..We would be happy to hold your number 357 for that period if you wish to do so.

I am well aware of this fact but others who have received places in the top 3 in their class may not be. It is only a little extra printing on the paper and a little more sorting out at the office but I think it would go a long way to making people feel as though they have been recognised for their achievement.

The last item I would like to address is the recent so called Stakeholders meeting held in Melbourne. I do not quite understand what is meant by the term “Stakeholder” as it was used in this instance. My interpretation of the term would be that the stakeholders of an organization or club or group were parties who had an interest or share or were in the position to gain or loose something as a result of something that happened to or within that club or group or organization. The meeting I am referring to appeared to be an invitation only gathering. If my interpretation of stakeholders is correct then this meeting should have been open to anybody that has any interest in off road racing. It is my belief that anybody who has spent any amount of money to enter in to off road is a stakeholder. It is also my opinion that anybody who makes a living from the off road fraternity is a stakeholder and it is also my opinion that any organization, town, group or company that has anything to do with the running of an off road event is a stakeholder. It is for this reason that I am disappointed with the secretive nature of this particular meeting. It is very easy to select a chosen few to arrive at a predetermined outcome. The majority should be allowed their say if they choose to do so. If they choose not to speak up then the minority that do can have it all their way.

In closing I am sure that this letter may appear to many people to be a very negative outlook on the sport.

However my outlook on the sport is quite the opposite. The sport at this point in time seems to be going from strength to strength and is doing this in a form that has remained unchanged for many years. As the saying goes “don’t fix what aint broke”. If I was to put down on paper all of the positive aspects of off road racing it would take you days to read. It is for this reason that I have only touched on the issues that I feel need to be addressed.

Hoping that this letter finds its way to the correct parties and that the issues within are considered.

Yours in offroading.

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

Hi Vicsmick,

There are some interesting points in your paper though I'm going to discuss the class proposal as its something I think would be beneficial for the sport.

VICSHMICK wrote:

It is the owner’s choice to compete in that class and if he feels that the class is out of reach then he should consider moving down to a class that is within his reach. For this reason I see no need to create a class for uncompetitive cars.

....

As the saying goes “don’t fix what aint broke”.

Dont fix what aint broke is a fair enough cliche, but this is the point of the restructure - it is broken! At a national level at least.

I understand why you'd feel passionate about the proposed loss of class 3 at a national level, but if you look at the entry numbers for national events, they are pretty dismal, and there is a excess of class 1 cars, (about to become worse with the amalgamation of 1 & 9) most of which are uncompetitive due to budget and the size of the class.

For this reason I do see the need to create a class for uncompetitve cars.

At the end of the day your view on the class restructure will be biased towards whats in your shed (just as mine is, just as everyone who owns a car is, we all have a stake in this decision) so I certainly dont begrudge your point of view, but the entry levels in class and the engine sizes of cars already competing at nationals are both hard pieces of evidence that are difficult to dismiss.

The arguments above are all well and good for national events, but we get great showing for class 3 and 9 at state and club level, so what's good for nationals will not be good for grass roots club/state level racing. I understand from the grapevine that SORRA will probably retain the class for club willI feel that there are definately roles for these classes at state/class (based on NSW entry lists), but how to have the best of both worlds for both club/state and national levels without making a horridly complicated system of classes which is worse than it is now, Im dont know!

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

Stakeholder:

1) "individuals and constituencies that contribute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and that are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers"

2) "People who are (or might be) affected by any action taken by an organization or group."

3) "Any person or persons properly armed to defend against vampires"

VICSHMICK · Regular Poster

Hi Wolf.

Yes you are 50% right when you say I am biased to the car in my shed.

The thing is though it is not the car in my shed it's the cars in my shop.

Probably the only class of car I haven't yet worked on in my shop is a class 5 car; I think I have covered all the other classes at some stage or another. It is in my best interests to fight for all the classes as they are now; they are my bread and butter.

As I said in my letter the loss of class 3 at national level will not affect me too much but it will affect many of my customers. The option for all the other classes except class 3 to run without a navigator will affect me though and I am strongly against this decision.

If low numbers are the cause for class 3 going then I cannot understand why class 7 is not gone already. Not only are they proposing not to get rid of class 7 they are proposing to merge it with a class that not competitive with a class 7 car so to me it seems as if class 7 is being protected for some reason.

As far as the fact that class 1 is getting too big and it is too hard to be competitive in that class I can not understand why the people who feel this way don't move back to class 2. And I already know the next thing you are going to say about that suggestion. You are going to say that the top end of class 2 is too expensive to compete with as well. And you may be right but I am sure that Matt Hanson and Cameron McClelland would argue that point at the moment.

It is also very likely that the proposed 4ltr class would have exactly the same problem within months of it being created. There is nothing to stop someone from spending 100k plus on a 4ltr class car and if they can drive it and prep it you have exactly the same situation as you are talking about now.

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

VICSHMICK wrote:

As far as the fact that class 1 is getting too big and it is too hard to be competitive in that class I can not understand why the people who feel this way don't move back to class 2. And I already know the next thing you are going to say about that suggestion. You are going to say that the top end of class 2 is too expensive to compete with as well. And you may be right but I am sure that Matt Hanson and Cameron McClelland would argue that point at the moment. It is also very likely that the proposed 4ltr class would have exactly the same problem within months of it being created. There is nothing to stop someone from spending 100k plus on a 4ltr class car and if they can drive it and prep it you have exactly the same situation as you are talking about now.

We competed in class 2 in the rivmasta and had a blast with it. An awesome division and we would have loved to have had a crack at nationals in that car. Budget in class 2 is less of an issue than 1 (obviously) and if you look back just a couple of years Ryan from Griffith was 201 in an older beam car (top job too!)

Yeah, the top class 2 cars are getting expensive, but with the expense also comes weight and complication. Big equalisers on track when youve got limited HP.

Im worried about the Pro Lite class going big buck too - my only suggestion (made above I think after being bounced around our shed) is to run OEM cases IE renault, porsche, audi etc limiting both $$$ and to some extent HP, but Im not sure how this would be received by the wider offroad community.

What sort of numbers are you getting for class 3 in state/club racing in Vic?

VICSHMICK · Regular Poster

Hey Wolf.

Yeh we are still getting pretty good numbers at club and state level in class 3.

Sea Lake had 7 class 3 cars on the queens birthday weekend and club level still gets good numbers in class 3, some of VORRA's closest competition has been between class 3 cars for the club championship in the past few years.

It is interesting to note that there were 7 class 3 cars to 1 class 7 at Sea Lake.

There were 9 class 3 cars to 2 class 7 cars at Finke.

And there are to date 4 class 3 cars to 2 class 7 cars at The Pines Enduro.

So just remind me again cause I seem to have forgotten just why it is that the class rationalisation is keeping class 7 and putting them with a class that they have a great advantage over (meaning class 5 of course) and is ditching class 3 or if you would like to put it another way allowing class 3 to run with a class that has a much greater advantage over it (meaning class 2 of course).

There must be some reason for this that is beneficial to the competitors. Surely it's not for some commercial gain or marketing advantage.........or is it?

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

I should have checked the proposal closer: The proposal includes a division up to 1330cc which will still exist up to state level, so Im a d1ck. Its been looked at and considered already, but of course wont satisfy everyone!

The 210km long Wittirin event in on near Kempsey this weekend (well done BTW to all at the Kempsey club to get this event off and rolling!) with 40 odd entries so far and almost even entries between the buggy divisions again.

ringo · Forum Addict

i think that maybe there are problems with class 7 at the moment, but putting them with any other class is not the answer. i think part of the low numbers is that there are very few class 7's that can compete with Geoff Pickering and as such just decide to build something else or just not race at a national level. at hyden there were 2 national level cars, pickering and a nice new 80 series and 2 non national level cars in class seven so is there a reason why class seven is so good in WA compared to other rounds (any answers obr184) i agree with some others and also think that the classes go in cycles and that class 7 will be strong nationally again.

class 3, there was only one buggy at hyden and i don't think there were any running at hyden that were form WA. i'm not saying that they don't deserve a place nationally, because over the rest of the rounds the numbers have been strong. i believe that is because this is a smaller budget class and it costs a lot to cross the nullabor.

really at the moment the only classes that need changing or reviewing are classes 7 and 3, but do not get rid of the entry level classes and do not make all classes optional to run one seat as being a navigator is often a way into the sport. it lessens the number of people involved and as some people said, it compromises safety with faster cars trying to pass.

maybe AORCOM could look at running contracted drivers, a few drivers in each class that are contracted to run all national rounds, but recieve a sum of money to cover as much of the cost as possible. this would work particularly well for the smaller budget classes such as class 3 and 7. I know in speedway this sort of thing happens with the world series sprintcars and seems to work well. it is probably not possible as money seems to be pretty tight. even tow money or incentives to get eastern staters to hyden and guys form the west to go to the east would probably bring up the numbers for all national events. this is probably unlikely, but is just a thought

that is my two cents worth

obr184 · Forum Junkie

ringo.

No reason why class 7 is so big over here but I beleive it is the best class (along with class 5) to start off in or simply compete in. You can simply buy a 4wd and put a cage in it with belts etc and go racing.

And the best bit is that you dont have to bring boxes of parts in from the U.S. as you can go to your local holden,ford,nissan or mitsubishi dealer and buy a new parts off the shelf.

I beleive that when(and I say when because it IS going to happen) this sport goes mainstream this will be one of the biggest(if not THE biggest) classes due to factory backing.

So if we get rid of class 7 then what interest are the factories going to have in us?

ringo · Forum Addict

that is what i'm saying, keep class 7

underdog · Powerhouse Poster

obr184 wrote:

I beleive that when(and I say when because it IS going to happen) this sport goes mainstream this will be one of the biggest(if not THE biggest) classes due to factory backing. So if we get rid of class 7 then what interest are the factories going to have in us?

i agree with obr184, If you take notice of the latest buzz in motoring. diesel powered cars, and the fact that Audi just won the Lemans 24hr with a diesel powered race car. There would be no better platform in Australia for a factory, than off roading to showcase the endurance and economy of their new common rail diesel technology.

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

Factories will always be reluctant to be involved in our sport. Let's say we achieve the ultimate & every major manufacturer enters class 7. That would mean say eight different factories involved. What that would mean is at the end of the season someone would come 8th. Does any manufacturer want to risk being 8th? Answer definetly not. It would be a disaster for potential sales. The risks are too high. Much easier not to get involved.

VICSHMICK · Regular Poster

I agree with Stingray.

Manufactures have always had the opportunity to prove themselves in class 7 but it is very rare to see more than 2 competing together. Nissan soon backed out when Mitsubishi started to have a few wins. It's all well and good when they are in front but nobody can promote a car sale by advertising it as coming 2nd to a Mitsubishi in the Australian Off Road Championships.

If we think we are going to get more than a couple of manufactures interested in competing at the same time we are only kidding our selves!

obr184 · Forum Junkie

VICSHMICK wrote:

I agree with Stingray. Manufactures have always had the opportunity to prove themselves in class 7 but it is very rare to see more than 2 competing together. Nissan soon backed out when Mitsubishi started to have a few wins. It's all well and good when they are in front but nobody can promote a car sale by advertising it as coming 2nd to a Mitsubishi in the Australian Off Road Championships. If we think we are going to get more than a couple of manufactures interested in competing at the same time we are only kidding our selves!

So why is the Australian(and International) rally championships still held?

Why does ford still compete in the V8 supercars?

Trekka273 · sponsor

obr184 wrote:

VICSHMICK wrote: I agree with Stingray. Manufactures have always had the opportunity to prove themselves in class 7 but it is very rare to see more than 2 competing together. Nissan soon backed out when Mitsubishi started to have a few wins. It's all well and good when they are in front but nobody can promote a car sale by advertising it as coming 2nd to a Mitsubishi in the Australian Off Road Championships. If we think we are going to get more than a couple of manufactures interested in competing at the same time we are only kidding our selves! So why is the Australian(and International) rally championships still held? Why does ford still compete in the V8 supercars?

The ARC and WRC are struggling for manufacturer numbers. Subaru has dropped out of the ARC as a manufacturer team. Mitsubishi has a limited campaign. Ford is only new in and wil hopefully stay there. WRC only has two major manufacturers (Ford and Subaru), the others not being full factory efforts.

Ford stay in the V8 supercars because it is a two horse race and they have won the championship the last three years. If Toyota were to join and begine to dominate, I have no doubt that both Ford and Holden would seriously consider their position in the sport.

The biggest problem with off road getting support is the fact that most courses are so long. That makes it very expensive to get good television coverage on a regular basis and it also makes it more difficult for spectators as they can't see a lot of the track, and hence they lose interest.

ringo · Forum Addict

why not run short course national championships? one day at a track around 10km or prologue length where the cars run side by side within there class, sort of like the dash for cash at millicent. would be interesting to watch and you could get could coverage if it was run properly the way i would run it would be to select the state champions or fastest in each class, from each state were selected to compete-hmm state of origin offroad racing

as for manufacturer interest, i'm sure that they will get involved sooner or later as numbers are increasing and when we get more tv coverage then it will happen however with mitsubishi's dominance, it is unlikely that anyone will join right now unless they knew that they could compete. i think another problem is that last year, pretty much the only cars to run national in class 7 were pajeros, nobody is racing anything else.

for manufacturers to get involved, coverage is needed, not just local tv for whatever round it was, but for national tv shows such as sbs speedweek or tens rpm. unlikely unless someone we really get out there and promote the sport

with the number of people in the sport now, it is time to try and capitalise on our numbers andd put the sport out there

it won't happen over night, but it will happen

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

ringo wrote:

why not run short course national championships?

naa - I dont reckon we dont need another national championship. One is enough! National events are supposed to be the pinacle of our sport mostly due to endurance - leave them that way. there are already state races to accomodate those who want to run short track.

besides - who'll travel interstate to race bugger all kms?

NSW has the NSWORC, the NSW Long course and NSW Short Course champs and the tri series.. .and nobody really gives much of a hoot about the long and short course champs.